1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bush Plan Eyes Cuts for Schools, Veterans, Environment

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by mc mark, May 28, 2004.

Tags:
  1. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Bush Plan Eyes Cuts for Schools, Veterans
    By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has told officials who oversee federal education, domestic security, veterans and other programs to prepare preliminary 2006 budgets that would cut spending after the presidential election, according to White House documents.

    The programs facing reductions — should President Bush be re-elected in November — would also include the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department.

    Many of the targeted programs are widely popular. Cuts could carry a political price for a president who has touted his support for schools, the environment and other domestic initiatives.

    A spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget said the documents, obtained by The Associated Press, contained routine procedural guidelines so officials could start gathering data about their needs for 2006.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    _Domestic security at the Homeland Security Department and other agencies would go from $30.6 billion in 2005 to $29.6 billion in 2006, a 3 percent drop.

    _The Education Department would go from $57.3 billion in 2005 to $55.9 billion in 2006, 2.4 percent less.

    _The Veterans Affairs Department would fall 3.4 percent from $29.7 billion in 2005 to $28.7 billion.

    _The Environmental Protection Agency would drop from $7.8 billion in 2005 to $7.6 billion, or 2.6 percent.

    _The National Institutes of Health, which finances biomedical research and had its budget doubled over a recent five-year period, would fall from $28.6 billion to $28 billion, or 2.1 percent.

    _The Interior Department would fall 1.9 percent from $10.8 billion in 2005 to $10.6 billion.

    _The Defense Department would grow 5.2 percent to $422.7 billion in 2006, and the Justice Department would increase 4.3 percent to $19.5 billion in 2006.

    Decisions about spending levels "won't be made for months," said the spokesman, J.T. Young. "It doesn't mean we won't adequately fund our priorities."

    Democrats said the papers showed the pressures that a string of tax cuts Bush has won from Congress have heaped onto the rest of the budget.

    "The only way we can even begin to pay for these huge tax cuts is by imposing cuts on critical government services," said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

    Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., in a teleconference set up by Democratic presidential contender John Kerry's campaign, called it the end of an administration "hide the ball" budget strategy.

    "The ball is now out for everyone to see," Graham said. "The only thing that's left in place is the part of the ball that is labeled 'tax cuts for my rich friends.'"

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20040528/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget_cuts
     
    #1 mc mark, May 28, 2004
  2. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    it seems to me that the real division in this country centers around whether or not you believe we're at war or not. someone who believes we're in an honest to goodness war on terror around the world would likely say, "ok...we may have to cut some domestic programs in order to bolster our defense." those who don't feel that way will obviously say this is a waste of money.

    if this sounds like a message from Captain Obvious, it just might be. not exactly an earth-shattering statement.
     
    #2 MadMax, May 28, 2004
  3. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Good point Max.

    Quick question. Would we have to make these cuts (to accommodate the WOT) if the tax cuts had not gone through? Or could we have funded all of these programs and possibly even increased them if there had been no tax cuts?
     
    #3 mc mark, May 28, 2004
  4. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    In a 2.2 trillion dollar budget, cuts have to be made. That is an obscenity that the Imperial Federal Govt sucks up that much revenue to waste. I won't be happy until the budget is back in the lower billions.
     
    #4 bamaslammer, May 28, 2004
  5. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    In that case, would you prefer that we cut the entire military budget? Isn't it in the high billions all by itself?
     
    #5 GladiatoRowdy, May 28, 2004
  6. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Can anyone tell me why how a Justice Department burns up $55 MILLION PER DAY? Are those mostly prison costs?

    *

    Kinda sick dropping Education.

    *

    I've felt for years that we should zero-base budget the Federal Gov one year. Prob save tens of billions.
     
    #6 Cohen, May 28, 2004
  7. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496


    Yep. We spend an ungodly amount housing drug war criminals.
     
    #7 GladiatoRowdy, May 28, 2004
  8. MacBeth

    MacBeth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yep. And even more, per person, on death row inmates. Mybe when we get with the 19th..er.20th..er 21st century, we'll save a little.
     
    #8 MacBeth, May 28, 2004
  9. HAYJON02

    HAYJON02 Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,777
    Likes Received:
    278
    I hear the sound of digging.
     
    #9 HAYJON02, May 28, 2004
  10. GreenVegan76

    GreenVegan76 Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    1
    When half your money goes toward "defense," cuts are deeper.
     
    #10 GreenVegan76, May 28, 2004
  11. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    it seems to me that the real division in this country centers around whether or not you believe we're at war or not. someone who believes we're in an honest to goodness war on terror around the world would likely say, "ok...we may have to cut some domestic programs in order to bolster our defense." those who don't feel that way will obviously say this is a waste of money

    Well I guess I could be just as neutral about cuts to veterans education and the environment if I could also say 1) the war on Iraq had something meaningful to do with the "honest to goodness war on terror" and 2) despite the war these cuts would not be necessary if we hadn't had the tax cuts, which even Bush admitted were aimed at the wealthy as he told Secretary O'Neil.
     
    #11 glynch, May 28, 2004
  12. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,789
    Likes Received:
    41,224
    I think a lot of people have gotten increasingly upset with the fact that the invasion of Iraq has morphed into such a huge commitment, financially and well as militarily. It chaffs them that this particular adventure was optional and could have been avoided at the time. They think they were mislead as well. All this may be repeating the obvious, but I think it colors how one views cuts of this nature.

    I think some cuts in parts of the budget could have been understood if the tax cuts for high income people had been suspended due to the war. This would have seemed like a reasonable compromise. But the Bush Administration seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. It doesn't want sacrifice badly enough to take back the windfall that it's given it's largest contributors. I don't think that's going over well with a lot of voters. (it sure isn't going over well with me)

    edit: and cutting veterans affairs now screams of stupidity.
     
    #12 Deckard, May 28, 2004
  13. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    LEGALISE.

    Spends the savings on Education and the Deficit.
     
    #13 Cohen, May 28, 2004
  14. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6

    Easy target.

    But also could be that we're losing WWII vets at such a sad rate that costs are dropping.

    If not, the move lacks class and morals.
     
    #14 Cohen, May 28, 2004
  15. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    There should be no:
    EPA
    Dept. of Education
    DEA
    ATF
    Federal Marshals
    TVA
    AMTRACK
    U.S. Postal Service
    Dept. of Agriculture
    Food and Drug Administration
    IRS
    Dept. of Health and Human Services
    Junk Social Security. Disband EBT, Mediscare, Medicaid and other vote-buying, dependency-breeding schemes. Combine all Federal law enforcement entities into the FBI. Entitlements consume most of the budget, so axe them. All of them. We can't cut our military budget in the time of war, but we can get rid of all of this needless spending and return those funds to the producers from whom they were taken from. Lets go back to a Constitutional LIMITED Federal govt. End popular election of Senators and put it back in the hands of state legislators where it belongs. The rise in Federal spending and power can be traced back to this awful travesty. I could go on and on, but the only thing the Federal govt. needs to provide is our defense, coinage and the interstate system. Everything else should be a state-run issue. The logic in delegating most of the responsibilties of govt to the states is inescapable. The lower the level of govt. the more responsive and responsible it is to the needs of the constituents.
     
    #15 bamaslammer, May 28, 2004
  16. Rockets10

    Rockets10 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2001
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    1
    That depends entirely on what side of the aisle you are on; one can spin that answer either way. But of course, without the tax cuts it changes the budgetary situation completely in the short term.
     
    #16 Rockets10, May 28, 2004
  17. thegary

    thegary Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Likes Received:
    3,140
    well, how else do you expect them to breed more orcs, err, neo-cons?
     
    #17 thegary, May 28, 2004
  18. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,789
    Likes Received:
    41,224
    You would think that if that's happening, then they have needs for vets that are currently underfunded or deserve to be increased.
     
    #18 Deckard, May 28, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page